During a conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine this week, President Trump proposed an unconventional idea: The United States could manage Ukrainian nuclear power facilities.
“The United States could greatly assist in operating those plants with its expertise in electricity and utilities,” the White House remarked in a statement following the call on Wednesday. “American ownership of these facilities would provide optimal protection for that infrastructure and bolster Ukrainian energy sources.”
This suggestion took officials and energy specialists in Kyiv by surprise, and it remains uncertain whether Mr. Zelensky would entertain such a proposal. Ukraine has four nuclear power plants, and there seems to be a discrepancy between the two parties regarding how many facilities are under discussion.
At a news conference, Mr. Zelensky indicated that the conversation centered primarily on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which is the largest in Europe and currently under Russian control.
The Ukrainian president characterized his discussions with Mr. Trump about the plant as “encouraging steps,” but cautioned, “I’m not sure we will see immediate results.”
The White House statement echoed a well-known argument from Mr. Trump: that U.S. economic involvement in Ukraine serves as the best guarantee of its security, as Russia would be less inclined to target a nation where America has vested interests. Mr. Trump has also used similar reasoning in discussions regarding access to Ukrainian critical minerals.
This raises the question: What potential interests might the United States have in Ukraine’s nuclear sector, and what obstacles could arise?
U.S. Economic Interests
Ukraine’s Soviet-era nuclear power plants have remained crucial to its energy infrastructure throughout the war, providing up to two-thirds of the country’s electricity supply. While Moscow has persistently targeted Ukraine’s thermal and hydroelectric facilities to weaken its energy grid, it has refrained from attacking nuclear sites, which could lead to a radiological catastrophe.
In this context, the Ukrainian government has begun plans to construct additional nuclear reactors, asserting that this is the only feasible route to ensuring long-term energy security.
This is where American business interests may come into play.
Just before the war began, Westinghouse, an American nuclear technology firm, finalized an agreement with Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-run nuclear agency, to build five reactors. Following Russia’s invasion, that number increased to nine, and the two companies agreed to further collaboration to implement smaller facilities in Ukraine.
For Westinghouse, this marked a significant breakthrough after years of attempting to penetrate a Ukrainian nuclear market historically dominated by Rosatom, the Russian nuclear power leader.
Westinghouse has a particular interest in the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility. Captured by Russia in March 2022, the plant no longer contributes electricity to the Ukrainian grid. However, prior to the war, it was utilizing fuel and technology from Westinghouse.
Olga Kosharna, a Ukrainian nuclear safety expert, noted that Russia’s takeover of the Zaporizhzhia facility raised alarms at Westinghouse over potential theft of its intellectual property. In 2023, the U.S. Energy Department cautioned in a letter to Rosatom that the company might face prosecution under U.S. law if it utilized Westinghouse technology at the facility.
Andrian Prokip, an energy expert with the Kennan Institute in Washington, remarked that Westinghouse would “definitely gain” from the plant being returned to Ukraine, as it would broaden its market.
It is uncertain whether Mr. Trump addressed the future of the Zaporizhzhia plant during his call with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin on Tuesday, as he had previously promised.
Westinghouse has yet to respond to a request for comments.
Two officials from Ukraine, one currently serving and another previously, indicated in conversations with Mr. Trump, that Kyiv has stressed the necessity for the Zaporizhzhia plant’s power capacity, as energy-intensive mineral extraction and processing would demand it.
Possible Challenges
Firstly, all of Ukraine’s nuclear power facilities are owned by Energoatom, and current Ukrainian legislation prohibits their privatization.
Modifying Ukraine’s laws to permit U.S. ownership would be a politically sensitive issue in a post-Soviet nation where numerous key industries remain state-controlled.
Though Ukraine has pursued a wave of privatization during the conflict, privatizing Energoatom — the state-owned entity that generates the highest revenue — would likely become a contentious issue.
“I anticipate significant resistance to this concept within Ukraine,” stated Victoria Voytsitska, a former Ukrainian lawmaker and prominent member of Parliament’s energy committee. “This opposition could arise from both sides of the political divide.”
Mr. Zelensky hinted at this challenge during his news conference following his call with Mr. Trump. If Russia were to return the Zaporizhzhia facility to Ukraine — a scenario many in Ukraine consider improbable — “merely handing over the plant” to the United States would not be feasible, Mr. Zelensky remarked, emphasizing, “it’s ours and it’s our territory.”
Restoring operations at the plants after three years of conflict would also pose a significant hurdle. Mr. Zelensky mentioned a timeframe of up to two and a half years to reactivate the compromised Zaporizhzhia facility.
Moreover, although all six reactors at Zaporizhzhia have been shut down, they still require power to maintain vital safety systems and to circulate cooling water in their cores to avert a meltdown.
However, the power lines supplying electricity to the facility have been severed multiple times throughout the conflict, and the destruction of a neighboring dam, potentially ordered by Russia, has diminished access to necessary cooling water, thereby increasing the risks of a nuclear incident.
